OK, I've part of this in a clutch of 5 of my flyers already, a sixth piece
would be directed at demonstrating the core commons principles. The back
story about is a bit complex but having some knowledge of who Keynes was
to macroeconomics. This will contextualize the debate and lack of debate
about deficit based debt in a economics should be more about its
performance, than the received dogma. Rocket scientists would not even
gain traction under such enclosing of a scientific commons. The
financialization of science in all of its domains and beach front
properties has diminished itself. Re:establishing the legacies of
alternative economic history seems critical, now that there is a bit more
impassioned need for a commons based array of choices.
Randall Wray has developed a primer for MMT that he has been serially
producing. I could probably meld it with what I have. My part 1 and part 2
on MMT, came from my review of his book "Understanding Modern Monetary
Theory." This should be ready in perhaps a month though I would like to
work through an editing process for, as you put it "..a lay audience."
My personal issue here is with the designation of "lay" versus
"professional." What I mean is that I am in large part an auto-didact,
which is a "lay" person performing to "professional" standards. I believe
in deschooling as in de-institutionalizing education. I tend to be
prejudiced against the distinctions invested in assuming that "lay" cannot
be taught to get out of their own way, or that credibility has any direct
correspondence time spent interned in institutions of "higher?" learning
or even online coursework as a measure of intelligence, sans practice.
as we go, Tadit
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:15:49 -0400, Michel Bauwens
<michel at p2pfoundation.net> wrote:
> Hi Tadit,
>> perhaps you could start with the general principles of MMT and in
> particular, what you call its 'commons' core, and why 'p2p' oriented
> people
> should pay attention to it?
>> perhaps we could use it to write a blog series introducing MMT?
>> Michel
>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 12:10 AM, <ideasinc at ee.net> wrote:
>>> If that is the case then it was mostly likely Prof. Stephanie Kelton. At
>> that I would be quite astonished if she ever actually said what you
>> thought she said. The Post-Keynesian discourse can be a bit difficult to
>> wrap your mind around at first. Yes, you were right to be startled by
>> the
>> possibility of the whole thing about demand side economics as defined by
>> bastard Keynesianism.
>>>> I have been following their blog for a number of years, and have read I
>> expect most of the articles she has written in the past ten years. I
>> hope
>> that your prior contact and confusion/revulsion will allow me to work
>> through these issue to your satisfaction.
>>>> One of the stories that goes along with understanding the
>> Post-Keynesian/MMT paradigm. To paraphrase a quip from Adolph Lowe to
>> the
>> effect that neo-classical economics likes to pretend that the economy
>> has
>> no means of control or influence strategically averting acknowledgement
>> of
>> the actual effects all effectively intentional and awareness only as it
>> is
>> convenient. In a sense as if economics was a variety of social quantum
>> physics, or that the bus we are on actually has a steering wheel,
>> brakes,
>> and regulatory functions that can be changed.
>>>> Ask me all of your MMT question and I will walk you through its commons
>> core. Much of the validation of the countercyclical intervention to
>> provide living wage jobs comes from the direct experience of the US
>> Depression era government employment initiatives, WPA, CCC,and the NYA.
>>>> Minsky is a major part of this discourse as well and his economic
>> science
>> is impeccable relative to the underlying scientific philosophy of
>> science.
>> Minsky's economics is not based upon any "equilibrium" based economic
>> model, just analytic and inductive in the validity, applicability,
>> adequacy, and reliability structure of discourse as a dialectic.
>>>> Tadit
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:08:47 -0400, Michel Bauwens
>> <michel at p2pfoundation.net> wrote:
>>>> > It was a blond woman from the uni of missouri and she seemed quite
>> smart
>> > and
>> > central to the core group ..
>> >
>> > My question was very clear asking to confirm whether they really
>> believed
>> > that lower taxation directly related to higher economic activity and
>> vice
>> > versa ..
>> >
>> > As for Robert remarks on backward thinking ... you can't compare the
>> > description of an ideal utopian system, with little chance of being
>> > implemented in the near future, with the classic debates on the good
>> use
>> > of
>> > taxation .. that's called 'current thinking' ...
>> >
>> > Within the current context and power relations, progressive taxation
>> and
>> > productive public investment would still be miles ahead of current
>> > neoliberal austerisizing
>> >
>> > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 7:31 PM, <ideasinc at ee.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Michael, I assure that that depiction of MMT is not accurate at all.
>> If
>> >> you have a link to some of that discussion, I can be more specific.
>> The
>> >> summary was actually radically wrong relative to MMT and functional
>> >> fiscal
>> >> policies. Taxation at this point is primarily a means of controlling
>> the
>> >> accumulation of wealth withing specific income groups, and of course
>> >> accelerating the incomes for other economic profiles. It has no
>> bearing
>> >> on
>> >> funding fiscal policies at all. The FEASTA people have been generally
>> >> fairly good relative to the rest of the folks promoting community
>> >> currencies, and that can be misleading because the level of economic
>> >> literacy among community currency advocates is generally very low,
>> which
>> >> makes it usually a zone the less well informed promote economic
>> >> illiteracy. If I had a name of one of the presenters or a name of the
>> >> association or?, I could trace back to the people at the Univ. of
>> >> Missouri
>> >> at Kansas City to see who those people were. From what you have
>> >> described
>> >> someone or some group seems to be promoting dys-information. This a
>> long
>> >> term pattern whereby pop-level "economics" speaker are used to
>> confuse
>> >> any
>> >> discourse or interest toward monetary reform. Perhaps MMT in a
>> nutshell
>> >> would be useful topic. I've done a two flyer set on a presentation of
>> >> MMT.
>> >>
>> >> The first flyer is at http://www.economics.arawakcity.org/node/674>> >>
>> >> The second flyer is at http://www.economics.arawakcity.org/node/675>> >>
>> >> I could digest this down to even simpler terms and a shorter length.
>> >>
>> >> and so we meander, Tadit Anderson
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 03:33:08 -0400, Michel Bauwens
>> >> <michel at p2pfoundation.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > hi Tadit,
>> >> >
>> >> > I checked your work through Google ... interesting!
>> >> >
>> >> > you may want to answer this, perhaps a misunderstanding of MMT on
>> my
>> >> part
>> >> > ...
>> >> >
>> >> > earlier this year, I attented a Modern Monetary Theory lecture in
>> >> Dublin,
>> >> > after some enthusiastic promptings of FEASTA members ..
>> >> >
>> >> > however, I came out less than enthusiastic ..
>> >> >
>> >> > the reason is the following, one of the ladies who gave the
>> lecture,
>> >> > gave an
>> >> > intro with the main principles of MMT, and one of the rules sounds
>> >> really
>> >> > simplistic supply-side to me
>> >> >
>> >> > she said, lower taxes, and the economy grows, higher taxes, and the
>> >> > economy
>> >> > slows down ...
>> >> >
>> >> > Disbelieving I asked a question on this, and she confirmed, and
>> this
>> >> > pretty
>> >> > much discredits MMT for me,
>> >> >
>> >> > Michel
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 6:27 PM, <ideasinc at ee.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Michael, this is the link to Bill Mitchell's Billy Blog site and
>> the
>> >> >> first
>> >> >> segment of 7 in total.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=6122>> >> >>
>> >> >> Mitchell is one of the top authorities on modern monetary
>> economics
>> >> >> which
>> >> >> is the discourse which has applied what was learned from
>> legitimate
>> >> >> interpretations of Keynes and of the demand side economics of the
>> >> WPA,
>> >> >> CCC, and NYA as progressive (U.S.) responses to the 20th century
>> >> Great
>> >> >> Depression. Mitchell covers a list of "progressive" nominal
>> >> >> economists/establishments in the successive entries. L. Randall
>> Wray
>> >> of
>> >> >> the Univ. of Missouri Kansas City Econ. Dept has made similar
>> >> statements
>> >> >> which would take me a bit longer to produce. The core difference
>> is
>> >> >> between the economic assumptions being applied. The New Economic
>> >> >> Perspectives from Kansas City blog has a treasure trove of
>> resources
>> >> >> both
>> >> >> in the current primer review and of other stand alone materials.
>> It
>> >> may
>> >> >> require a bit of translation. Mitchell is at the top of his class
>> in
>> >> >> terms
>> >> >> of modern monetary economics and as a perspective it has been one
>> of
>> >> the
>> >> >> few opposing perspectives relative the well funded deficit
>> terrorism
>> >> >> campaigns. Some of the material may seem counter-intuitive, and
>> it is
>> >> >> based upon in part how central banking actually operates
>> currently,
>> >> only
>> >> >> how those principles can serve a more public and more social
>> agenda.
>> >> The
>> >> >> counter-intuitive part derives from the neo-classical framing
>> which
>> >> has
>> >> >> dominated the field for decades if not longer. Ie, by its
>> >> familiarity,
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> neo-classical framing seems correct when it is not actually, and
>> >> serves
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> contain genuine progressive initiatives within a neo-classical
>> box of
>> >> >> assumptions. On a related topic, what is known as Jevons's
>> Paradox is
>> >> >> often applied within ecological and environmental circles to
>> "prove"
>> >> the
>> >> >> futility of progressive energy measures and energy efficient
>> >> technology,
>> >> >> ends up being paradoxical only within the neo-classical set of
>> >> >> assumptions.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> as we go, Tadit
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 06:49:51 -0400, Michel Bauwens
>> >> >> <michel at p2pfoundation.net> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > thanks, do you have a link to the baker critique you mention
>> below?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Michel
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:59 PM, <ideasinc at ee.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Y'all, Baker tends to have a reputation of being strong on the
>> >> >> rhetoric
>> >> >> >> but very weak on the actual economics side of his material. It
>> has
>> >> >> been
>> >> >> >> demonstrated that his economic assumptions are neo-liberal in
>> >> their
>> >> >> >> substance. Though this might be an interesting foray at one
>> >> level, if
>> >> >> >> done
>> >> >> >> in a less than serious fashion it is likely to promote economic
>> >> >> >> illiteracy. This may seem harsh, and buying into the
>> >> >> >> neo-liberal/neo-classical framing of our situation cuts off
>> even
>> >> >> >> imagining
>> >> >> >> informed fiscal options. I come from primarily a post-Keynesian
>> >> >> >> macro-economics and functional finance perspective, and this
>> sits
>> >> >> well
>> >> >> >> with my 20 plus years of being active in community centered
>> >> economic
>> >> >> >> activism, from entrepreneurship development, to being
>> treasurer of
>> >> >> two
>> >> >> >> different cooperatives, to being downstream of fraud
>> perpetrated
>> >> >> under a
>> >> >> >> false flag of left "progressiv-ism," and other investments
>> >> regarding.
>> >> >> >> Just
>> >> >> >> finished a series of essays by Bill Mitchell which included a
>> >> >> critique
>> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> Dean Baker's economics, entitled "With Friends, Like These..."
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Tadit Anderson, Re-Imagining Economics
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 01:50:04 -0400, Michel Bauwens
>> >> >> >> <michel at p2pfoundation.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>>http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/End-of-Loser-Liberalism.pdf>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Hi Kevin, perhaps you'd find chapter 10 interesting, and even
>> >> >> chapter
>> >> >> >> 11,
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > commentary always appreciated if you have time,
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Michel
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> >> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
>> >> >> >> http://www.p2pfoundation.net>> >> >> >>
>> >> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
>> >> >> http://www.p2pfoundation.net>> >> >>
>>https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
>> >> http://www.p2pfoundation.net>> >> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>>> _______________________________________________
>> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
>>http://www.p2pfoundation.net>>https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>>>>